Riyadi v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
|
CACV 688/2026 [2026] HKCA 1451 On Appeal from [2026] HKCFI 3179 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO 688 OF 2026 (ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1504 OF 2025) ________________ BETWEEN
_________________
________________ J U D G M E N T ________________ Hon Linda Chan J (giving the judgment of the court): Background 1.This is an appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung dated 18 June 2026[1] refusing to grant leave for the applicant to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) concerning his non-refoulement claim. 2.The applicant is a national of Indonesia. He arrived in Hong Kong on 28 April 2024 as visitor and subsequently overstayed. He surrendered to the Immigration Department on 20 December 2024 and raised a non-refoulement claim on 2 January 2025. His claim was made on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed and killed by his cousin because he had committed adultery with his cousin’s wife. Decisions of the Director and the Board 3.By Notice of Decision dated 9 April 2025, the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) rejected the applicant’s non-refoulement claim on all applicable grounds. His appeal was dismissed by the Board on 19 June 2025[2] on the basis that the Board did not believe the applicant’s assertions as his testimony was vague and lack of material information[3]. In any event, the Board found that state protection and internal relocation options are available to the applicant in Indonesia[4]. The judge’s decision 4.The applicant filed a Form 86 on 30 June 2025 to seek leave to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Board. His application was dismissed by the judge on 18 June 2026. Grounds of appeal 5.In the Notice of Appeal filed on 24 June 2026, the applicant stated as his grounds of appeal that his dangerous situation was disregarded. 6.In his skeleton arguments, he set out his background as well as what had happened between his cousin’s wife, his cousin and him. He also reiterated that he does not want to go back to Indonesia because his cousin will kill him and the applicant’s wife knew that he has a girlfriend in Hong Kong. Legal principles 7.The Court of Appeal’s general approach in dealing with appeals in non-refoulement cases is set out in Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524. Analysis and disposition 8.In his skeleton arguments, the applicant attached a copy of some text messages written in Indonesian and submitted that his cousin asked for a compensation in the sum of IDR 500.000.000. He did not apply for leave to adduce new evidence in the appeal and did not provide a translation of the messages. In any event, we did not think that the applicant’s new evidence goes anywhere near to show that the Board’s finding is in any way incorrect. 9.The applicant’s assertion that his safety is disregarded is not supported by any evidence. The applicant failed to demonstrate that the judge had made errors of law or failed to take account of relevant matters already placed before the court or was otherwise plainly wrong. 10.The appeal is devoid of merits and is dismissed.
The Applicant (Appellant), acting in person, absent | |||||||||||||||||||||||||